Reports indicate FIFA says Brazil may host 2014

Why would Argentina need to co-host?

Don't they have a ton of 40,000+ all-seaters already?

Sachin

 

If Brazil hosts they will win.

 

But 2014 is the USSF's target year for the US's first cup title.. Hold the presses!
Besides, a home Brazilian crowd just isn't very intimidating like an Argentine crowd. The samba beat just never scared me that much. I've seen their fans in action in person and they just have a lot of fun and are great hosts for everyone.. (okay.. time to lay it on me!)

 

Okay.. Thanks.. When I was in Argentina it was club matches that impressed me. I never attended club matches in Brazil and have only seen them play in internationals so your statement makes perfect sense and clairifies things.

 

brazil should defenitely host the cup, its time to replace those dumps (i mean stadiums)

 

Yes, since FIFA will need to make some money to make up for all the loses from the previous years..

 

There is no way in hell that Africa is qualified to host the World Cup.

 

Looking into my crystal ball: "Ronaldo, at 37, captains Brazil to their 8th World Cup triumph."

 

2006 Germany
2010 Brazil
2014 England

It should go Europe - South America - Europe - South America and so on and so forth.

The last time the world cup was held in North America it produced the worst Final of any tournament ever. Worthington cup finals are more entertaining than the ************ that was produced that day. The world cup as a whole in 1994 was a farce. This years world cup would of been the worst ever if it hadnt been for USA94.

 

Apparantly you never watched any games from WC 94. It was a very good tournament in general.

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by mr magoo
2006 Germany
2010 Brazil
2014 England

It should go Europe - South America - Europe - South America and so on and so forth.

The last time the world cup was held in North America it produced the worst Final of any tournament ever. Worthington cup finals are more entertaining than the ************ that was produced that day. The world cup as a whole in 1994 was a farce. This years world cup would of been the worst ever if it hadnt been for USA94. [/QUOTE]

How boring, and provincial.

How did the location of the event contribute to your perceived negative play of the teams?

Italy '90 was one of the more tactically restrictive cups ever IMO.

Other than the final game, USA 94 wasn't bad...ARGxNIG, ITAxNIG, ROMxARG, ITAxSPN, BRAxHOL, BULXGER off the top of my mind were all entertaining games.

Location may influence the crowd atmosphere, but I fail to see how it influences the overall play.

 

So you blame the USA for a final match that was not up to standards?
Perhaps maybe the fact that England wasn't there is coloring your opinion.
It was the best attended Cup ever, by far.
Saying one country should never host again because of how a final looked to you is hardly going to be a serious consideration.
It's the World Cup and thank goodness FIFA will ignore the Eurosnobs when making the decisions.

 

I liked WC94

 

But United Statesians turn up in vast numbers for that damn WWE type thing, and tractor pullkng and motor cross.
Having huge numbers at matches doesn't automatically equate to a fantastic tournament.
Point in case - Japorea 2002. Massive stadia, relatively full - full of hired support. Full of people who knew bugger all about the sport apart from that it might be a good idea to bang one of those silly little drums they gave out, for 90 minutes.
Don't get sucked into the typical US sentiment of bigger necessarily being better.

As a tournament, France '98 pissed on this last one, and I'm betting the next one will be the same. They won't have stadia of the same hugeness, yet it will have everything this last one lacked.

 

No.. Bigger isn't always better but I'm answering the Eurosnobs who before WC 94 said that FIFA's decision was going to prove to be a disaster and that the stands would all be half empty if not worse and the WC would lose huge amounts of money.
The opposite proved true. And also remember, I believe by FIFA's numbers, there are more people playing soccer in organized leagues in the US than any other country on earth currently.

 

Re: Re: Reports indicate FIFA says Brazil may host 2014

True.

But, help me understand how location helps to explain lackluster or exciting play on the field.

What was the reason for such dour play in Italy'94 (if not for the Cameroon story it would have been unremarkable) ?

 

Fixed your typo though I'm sure everyone knew what you meant.

 

The world cup in 94 was like an episode of Friends. Kind of pleasant and easy on the eye, but you'd be wary of anyone telling you it was great.

Italia 90 might have seen a few ugly games, but there was nothing at USA'94 that even came close to matching the passion of the big games at that tournament. Given the choice of watching a match in a stadium with 35,000 people who really care, of 75,000 people having a day out, I know what I'd choose.

My least favourite phrase used in this forum - "USA'94 was the best world cup ever as it was the most profitable" - that isn't what it's about.

2014 should be in Brazil.

 

On that subject - and not wanting to take this thread off topic - I thought I heard Mr Bladder in one of his ramblings, say that even 2010 was a definite possibility (for South America). But everyone round here keeps mentioning 2014, have I missed something?
I'm only asking because it made the farce of the changing of WC allocations, seem a little less insane - in that at least South America would host it instead of the much publicised African proposal.